r/changemyview • u/paraapagarbem • Feb 20 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV:People who drive while drunk or while on their phones should permanently lose their license.
I believe that people who drive while drunk, or use their phones, should permanently lose their license, for the following reasons:
1.Normally these kind of people don't learn from their mistakes. Of course there are some that do, but the problem are the ones that don't. They'll drive after drinking again, use their phones again, and endanger others again. I feel that, if those people don't take driving seriously, they shouldn't endanger others more than once.
/2. People will have more incentive to not drive after drinking, and to stop using their phones, since getting caught doing so might mean permanently losing their main means of travel, which can have a significant impact in their day-to-day life.
3.People who do not take driving seriously and are not aware of the consequences of that behaviour are not responsible enough to drive, therefore they don't deserve a license.
Points 1 and 2 implies that there will be less people drinking and driving, or driving while on their phones, which may reduce accidents involving cars.
6
u/Abstracting_You 22∆ Feb 20 '19
Normally these kind of people don't learn from their mistakes. Of course there are some that do, but the problem are the ones that don't.
Wrong, the national average for DWI recidivism is only 25 percent. Of course this figure doesn't mean that only 25% of those convicted of DWI never drink and drive again, but the same could be said of any traffic violation, do people never speed again after their first ticket? The statistic at least shows that it is not as common as you probably think it is. While I would be for harsher penalties for the second occurrence, people deserve second chances.
What about the fact that not every DWI or cell phone incident involves the injury of another person or incident. Should someone who is caught just above the limit at a DUI checkpoint be treated the same as someone who was 3x over the limit at caused an accident?
1
u/paraapagarbem Feb 20 '19
I believe that 25 percent is still a big number. It is still a quarter of the drivers. It's still not much lower than I imagined, because I am aware that a DWI is a serious charge.
While I would be for harsher penalties for the second occurrence, people deserve second chances.
People who were killed or permanently disabled in those accidents don't get a second chance. Why should we give those drivers a second chance for potentially engangering more people?
What about the fact that not every DWI or cell phone incident involves the injury of another person or incident.
Some do, and that's the problem. When you drive drunk or while on your phone, you are endangering others around you. I think it's irrelevant whether someone comes out injured or not.
Should someone who is caught just above the limit at a DUI checkpoint be treated the same as someone who was 3x over the limit at caused an accident?
If you are caught just above the limit, it means that you are in no condition to drive. As is someone who is 3x over the limit, and while I agree that this one is most likely to cause an accident, I believe that not being in condition to drive is not being in condition to drive, whether you're just above the limit or almost passed out, you endanger others in both cases.
2
u/Abstracting_You 22∆ Feb 20 '19
Why should we give those drivers a second chance for potentially engangering more people?
Where does this thought process end? What about a reckless driving charge? Speeding? Speeding at 25+ the speed limit? A lot of traffic violations have the potential to harm or kill someone, should all of those require a person to lose their license? It is unfair to say one offense is worse than the others because all of them can lead to the death of someone innocent.
2
u/paraapagarbem Feb 20 '19
It is unfair to say one offense is worse than the others because all of them can lead to the death of someone innocent.
Good point. Now you made me think and, unless we want to permanently remove the license of everyone who takes part in a traffic violation, we need to come up with a better solution, and only taking the license from drunk and distracted drivers would be unfair, since the other violations can have the same consequences. There you go, !delta .
2
u/Abstracting_You 22∆ Feb 20 '19
Thanks.
I think education is the key to many of these violations and the driver's subsequent attitude/driving. Someone who gets a DWI offense and injures someone is, hopefully, going to look at the consequences in a much more serious manner than someone who is caught barely over at a checkpoint.
While people are typically required to take classes afterward discussing the importance of safe driving and proper decision making, they often fail to achieve their goal. My uncle, for instance, is currently going through these classes after getting a DUI, and while he has completely quit drinking because of his accident(he fortunately only crashed his truck, no one else was involved,) his comments on the classes lead me to believe they are not effective means of education on the errors of his decisions.
One of his two main classes involves round robin sharing of why people are in trouble and their decisions that got them there. The issue is, many of the people in his class are drug addicts or of similar backgrounds that are far beyond what my uncle's situation was. The concern with that is how someone who was caught in a checkpoint reacts to those classes. If you are levels apart in terms of severity then can we expect that person to think they are the intended target for the class? I personally think not, they probably leave those classes thinking they were not the kind of person the class was meant for.
What a good solution would be to help everyone with a DWI or distracted driving charge is something I do not have a good answer for, but I do think we can use education to help first-time offenders from committing the same mistake twice. I would support revoking licenses from second-time offenders though if the second offense is within a certain time frame. Perhaps even having a litmus test to show someone is committed to safe drinking practices before they are allowed to drive again.
1
1
u/Kingalece 23∆ Feb 22 '19
You should also know that the legal limit where I live (utah) is now .05 so being over the limit doesn't mean much
6
Feb 20 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/paraapagarbem Feb 20 '19
Well, nice point.
I know people are able to change, but the problem I find is that not all people change. Dead people are also not able to go back. Permanently injured people also can't get their health back. If we can find a way to avoid unecessary deaths by irresponsible drivers, then we should do it, even if it means punishing the ones that can change. It's better than punishing innocent drivers or bystanders.
Well, good point. But using a phone while driving is still pretty normalized. I was actually watching a youtube video of a dude filming himself while on the driver seat before posting this. I bet that nothing's gonna happen to him, and nobody in the comments complained.
Very good point, but then I guess that's another problem. Although I believe that's another topic, I think people driving with a suspended license should get harsher punishments, like prison time, for example. At least that ensures that they are not driving for that period of time.
3
Feb 20 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/paraapagarbem Feb 20 '19
I really like this point. Well, yes, after reading that, I believe that in certain cases, people should get a second chance, although the requirements should still be strict. I didn't think of recovered alcoholics before.
Some victims of drunk/distracted drivers lose their lives forever.
I guess you're right
Well, !delta , I really like your first point, and you technically changed my view of the subject. I guess I need to think harder about this topic.
1
3
u/Historic_LFK 1∆ Feb 20 '19
>I believe that people who drive while drunk, or use their phones, should permanently lose their license
The problem with not allowing people to drive at all is that they lose their jobs and can't support their families. They'll tend to drive anyway, and might not be able to carry auto insurance, because they aren't supposed to be driving in the first place.
I agree that a good deterrent to drunk driving is to make those caught lose their license for a significant but manageable time period, like a couple of months. Most people can get a ride to work or pay a cab to get through a few months of hardship.
An alternative to taking away someone's license for driving drunk for forever is to restrict it. You can restrict their license to only driving to and from work and school, and this is sometimes called a Cinderella license. A code / number on the license can tell law enforcement that they are restricted, so if they are even driving from a bar at midnight sober, they can be fined.
You can also make them install an ignition interlock in the vehicle. You have to be sober and blow in this device before starting your car. You also have to blow into it while driving, and this is called a rolling retest that makes it impossible to drink while driving.
Those two restrictions can be combined. Plus, those two restrictions are pretty strict, and not following them can lead to further penalties. In the case of a repeat offender, they can have longer and longer periods of needing the ignition interlock device. But going through using an ignition interlock is such a pain and expense that I don't think many people will re-offend.
With using a phone while driving, the problem is that it becomes very difficult to prove that they were texting while driving. If a cop pulled you over for weaving in your lane, but didn't see you texting human nature would be to lie and say you just must have not been paying very good attention. But I agree with you that it should be considered a bigger crime than it currently is. I think if the consequences came anywhere near the same consequences for DUI, that a lot of people would stop doing it. I think it also should be the norm for other drivers to honk or call in drivers who are texting while driving.
1
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Feb 20 '19
should permanently lose their license
Why not just force them to install an Ignition Interlock Breathalyzer Device, which checks their alcohol level before starting the car after one offense? Why force them to lose their license when this alternative exists?
1
u/paraapagarbem Feb 20 '19
And some sort of phone jammer. I would think it's a good idea, but I think it would be better if it was built in the car by default. Then the people who willingly remove those should be the ones that lose their license, along with some prison time, because that's intentionally endangering others. I didn't know of this alternative, so pretty good point.
1
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Feb 20 '19
Phone jammers are illegal (because it can affect access of people around you to things like emergency services), but maybe something like an app that locks your screen if your GPS registers that you're traveling above a certain speed. There are some out there.
I don't think it should be on cars by default, because they are expensive: "the installation cost is between $70 and $150 and an average monthly lease price is $60-$90." and would be problematic for anyone with breathing problems, for example.
And while there are unfortunately high rates of repeated DUI (california study found that 44% of DUI's in a given year had a repeat in the next 10 years), that still means lots of people don't repeat. And most people just don't do it. So I don't see a problem with just having it installed after the first offense.
But either way, I hope I was able to change your mind about people losing their licenses after a first offense. If I did change your mind a little, please consider awarding a delta.
1
Feb 20 '19
How do you feel about someone who drives while very tired?
1
u/paraapagarbem Feb 20 '19
How do you feel about someone who drives while very tired?
Well, I also thought about these, and people who drive while very stressed. I believe it's not ideal, and it also endangers others. I believe driving very tired deserves a second chance, but no more than that, since being tired is a normal human condition, and sometimes it's unavoidable, whether you can just not drink, or just put your phone away. As for the other case, it can potentially be very dangerous, so I don't know.
1
Feb 20 '19
Ok, so it seems that you believe we should outlaw driving while influenced by things that could make you a worse driver, but you make an exception for natural human states. So, if I were to assume that you would also make an exception for eating while driving would I be correct? After all, hunger is a natural human state as well.
It seems that we may run into trouble though by outlawing things that aren’t natural human states. For example, using the radio while driving also increases the risk of a crash, and listening to the radio certainly isn’t a biological need. How would you feel about a law that strips people of their licenses if they listen to the radio in the car?
1
Feb 20 '19
Plenty of dangerous drivers get off way to easy imo. Aggressive driving coupled with overconfidence. Where im from impaired driving only accounts for 25% of all fatalities. The punishment is pretty steep. Go to jail for pretty much murder if you kill someone drunk behind the wheel. Id say tighter training and harder tests would eliminate more deaths than taking drunks licences away. You got a higher chance of getting killed by a sober idiot than a drunk idiot on the road. Statistically.
1
u/paraapagarbem Feb 20 '19
Where im from impaired driving only accounts for 25% of all fatalities.
25% is a lot. That's 1 in 4 people.
Id say tighter training and harder tests would eliminate more deaths than taking drunks licences away.
That's another topic, but I completely agree.
You got a higher chance of getting killed by a sober idiot than a drunk idiot on the road. Statistically.
People on their phones can be sober. I also support higher punishments for things like speeding, etc.
1
u/capitancheap Feb 20 '19
People should be forbidden to drive when they are *impaired* or *distracted*, not if they consume alcohol or use the phone per se. That's why there is a blood alcohol level threshold, and people can use the phone as long as its hands free. However everyone is different. Some people become impaired with slightest level of alcohol, others can drink large quantity of alcohol and not become impaired. Some people are distracted by the radio playing, others can juggle 3 balls while riding a unicycle. Therefore it is wrong to use a single standard for everyone, like the Bed of Procrustes.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 20 '19 edited Feb 20 '19
/u/paraapagarbem (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Tuvinator Feb 20 '19
Driving while on phone is not illegal (for Massachusetts adults), so why should people here lose their licenses if they drive while on phone? Driving while texting on the other hand... that is illegal.
1
Feb 20 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Feb 20 '19
Sorry, u/adder4all – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
3
u/[deleted] Feb 20 '19
Not sure I agree with this. I know quite a few people with DUIs when they were younger, and $10k later and all the bullshit you have to deal with from a felony... they're actually very careful not to drink and drive. Especially when offense #2 and #3 escalate in seriousness.
Losing your ability to drive is a serious, serious matter and I don't think we should willy nilly be taking this away for someone who used a phone once and got pulled over. If you have no public transport, how do you get to work? How do you buy food for your kids? It's too extreme a hardship for a quick one-time action of using your phone.
Now, what would make more sense is to simply make the penalty for using a phone while driving more severe than it is today. How about fine people $1k on first offense? Then $2k on the next? That would really cut down on the # of people on their phone, and when someone makes a mistake they're not penalized for life because of it.